Mr Paul Kohler
MP for Wimbledon · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“(4) For the purposes of seeking to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees, the Taskforce must— (a) work to ensure that the work of different services involved in facilitating the transition out of asylum support of asylum seekers and refugees is coordinated; (b) work to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees granted core…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In June, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee noted “with disappointment that no strategy for integration in England was written following the publication of Indicators for Integration.” The Committee said: “We welcome the commitment to develop an effective cross-government integration strategy but are concerned that the…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I made clear in a previous sitting, I have serious concerns about the use of the independent immigration appeals authority to handle first-tier tribunal cases, in particular because Australia trialled something similar and found that non-judicial tribunal panels often took more time to reach decisions because their members struggled wi…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after the establishment of the Taskforce, and annually thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the work of the Taskforce; (b) the evidence considered under subsection (4)(d) on the move-on period, and any recommendations made by the Taskforce; and (c) any changes made…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
780 held · 711 searchable for Mr Paul Kohler. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“The very least we can do is to ensure that the system works as it should. Cancer and serious illness take so much from individuals and their families, access to parking should not be another burden that they are forced to carry.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Public transport in particular must work for everyone, and we are campaigning for train stations around the country to meet essential accessibility standards, such as step-free access, safer and more inclusive platform designs, and level boarding wherever possible. Things such as that and blue badge accessibility are crucial to a society that cares for everyone and has an inclusive approach to how we live our lives. Ultimately, we need a system that is fairer, simpler and more humane, one that recognises the challenges posed by cancer and chronic illness, even when those challenges do not fit neatly into a tick-box form or an online mechanism. A blue badge can mean being able to go to work, to reach a hospital, to attend a support group, or simply to visit a friend. It is about dignity, independence and inclusion.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is entirely feasible to implement an automatic offer of a blue badge where clinical records show clear mobility changes, as so eloquently argued for by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Chatham and Aylesford. Smaller but important changes we could make include amending blue badge signage, which we support, to clarify that not all disabilities are visible. That would help to reduce stigma and the misunderstanding faced by many users of the scheme. We are also pushing to ban discriminatory practices by taxis and private hire vehicles with a clear national standard for what an accessible city should be. We remain firmly committed to improving accessibility across society.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In other cases, the criteria for blue badge eligibility fail to map neatly on to fluctuating conditions such as cancer. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for the blue badge scheme, as is everyone in the Chamber, I think. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), we want it to be more responsive to real-world need, more compassionate in its interpretation of eligibility and more efficient in delivery. We also urge the Government to take advantage of their ambition for a single patient record. Much of the infrastructure exists already, particularly in cancer care.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Furthermore, 71% say they struggle to afford travel costs, with parking charges contributing to an extra £250 a month. Many also report that parking arrangements at hospitals are inadequate. The charity Young Lives vs Cancer cited one parent who described hospital parking as a lottery: “I can probably win the lottery better than I can get a parking space.” In my constituency, a resident contacted me about her 83-year-old husband, who has blood cancer and neuropathy, uses a wheelchair, and cannot walk. Despite that, Labour’s Merton council lost his blue badge application, forcing his wife to resubmit it. That is unacceptable, and it highlights the pressing need for the more seamless blue badge process that we are advocating.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The blue badge scheme provides essential parking concessions to help people with significant mobility challenges to park close to their destination, whether they are the driver or passenger. Cancer treatment side effects, such as fatigue from chemotherapy, chronic pain or nerve damage, can all severely limit mobility. However, despite the profound and often sudden impact of such conditions, many people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses, as we have already heard today, find they do not automatically qualify for a blue badge. The cost of travelling to medical appointments is already high, and for those undergoing frequent treatments and tests, it quickly adds up. Research shows that 93% of young cancer patients and their families travel to hospital by car and need a place to park.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this debate, and her constituent, Sandy, on bravely campaigning on this issue. It is people like her who make a real difference to this world—thank you. A cancer diagnosis does not simply change someone’s medical needs; it changes the course of their life. Even the most basic tasks can become physically painful and emotionally draining. It may be a short-term issue during recovery or represent a permanent shift. In these circumstances, a blue badge can offer crucial support, making it easier to access vital services and maintain a degree of independence.”
House of Commons16 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Mr Counsell, I would like to quiz you on your first point. Given the premium on SAF, the mandate is going to cost far more than the RCM? Jonathon Counsell: Yes.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Some of the evidence we have received from the contributors to the consultation expressed concern over the levy calculation. Under clause 6, it could be based on historic market share. Do you share those concerns about complications in the levy calculation? Should it be a simple levy placed on sales going forward, rather than on historic market share? Ruben van Grinsven: Again, that is hard to judge because we do not have the full details of how this is going to be done. I agree that it is a very thin-margin business, so we have to make sure that the levy is distributed properly, and that we do not give certain people a disadvantage or advantage just based on calculation methods. We need to design it very carefully so we do not disturb the market too much.”
House of Commons15 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is vital, however, that the new organisation works closely with the communities affected by noise and air pollution—as has been said, there will be losers as well as winners—and that local communities feel that their voice is being heard when changes take place. We understand that London will be the first area that the UKADS considers. Can the Minister clarify the timeline for the creation of the new service and when we can expect the work on the modernisation of London’s airspace to commence? Can he give any indication of how long the Department envisages it will take for the UKADS to publish and consult on its draft proposals? Finally, will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that UKADS works closely with the public, so that the communities affected by the changes are and feel properly consulted?”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate the fractured and complex system of managing airspace. It is important to bring it into the 21st century by delivering flight paths that cut emissions and ensure that journeys can be quicker, quieter and cleaner. The creation of a single guiding mind to co-ordinate and sponsor future airspace changes is a positive step and something that my party warmly welcomes. We recognise that without modernisation, not only will there be unnecessary capacity constraints, but outdated flight paths will constrict innovation and stand in the way of future advances, including essential low and zero-carbon developments in the sector.”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I sympathise with the Minister’s frustration at the Tories’ brass neck. There is clearly a crisis in the criminal justice system, and it is clearly of their making. However, rather than undermining the jury system, we need to invest in our courts. Does the Minister agree that this is all about priorities? Is she going to use her limited budget to build more prisons and simply produce more prisoners, or use that limited money to invest in the criminal justice system and restorative justice?”
House of Commons9 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness. Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives. The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares. As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities. The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances. I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education. Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so. We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone. Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network. Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important. We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress. The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need. We need to go further than simply having the requirement.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential. The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider— (a) the size of the operator’s fleet, (b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and (c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.” This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 23, page 18, line 42, at end insert— “154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation (1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it. (2) In particular, local transport authorities may— (a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services, (b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and (c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on. Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We remain of the view that without the amendment, the proposals will not give small bus companies the benefits that we are seeking to achieve. We are not convinced that that can be done without the explicit mention of small bus companies, as provided by the amendment.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments on our amendment, but what is the point of including anything in proposed new subsection (2) then? Following his argument, nothing needs to be there.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“324.] Here is the Minister’s chance to prove that the PM is a man of his word by accepting our amendment and showing that the Government do take sustained antisocial auditory disturbance seriously in the face of those who would—bizarrely—argue that it is not a nuisance.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perhaps more significantly, in what has become an increasingly rare experience for the Conservative leader, she appears to still be speaking for most of her parliamentary party—although not, it seems, for the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on this issue at least—given the jeers and heckling directed at me from the Opposition Benches when I raised headphone dodgers at Prime Minister’s questions recently. I humbly suggest to the Minister that it is worth noting the Prime Minister’s answer to my question. Pointing at the jeering Conservative Benches, he said: “We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.” —[ Official Report , 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We urge all parties to support the amendment and finally bring an end to commutes filled with unnecessary noise, disturbance and frustration. In what has become a running motif of the Committee, the Minister has said that the amendment, like so many that have perished before it, is unnecessary on two broad grounds. First, he argues that the antisocial playing of music and other content already comes within the term “nuisance” under the Government’s proposed new section of the 2000 Act. That is clearly open to challenge, however: I have already quoted the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears not to regard such thoughtless or intimidatory disturbance as a nuisance.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some have accused me of abandoning my liberal sensibilities in seeking to address the issue. All I would say to such critics is that liberalism is as much about responsibilities as about rights. I do not begin to see how my right to play content loudly on my phone or some other device obviates my responsibility not to cause unnecessary disturbance to others. Whether people are heading to work, taking their kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, they deserve to feel safe and respected on public transport. Time and again I hear people say that they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or videos from a phone or speaker. The Liberal Democrats want to take tough action on headphone dodgers to ensure that every passenger feels safe and respected, and can travel in peace.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendment is a sensible step that would ensure local authorities have the tools that they need to combat a growing menace. Not everyone agrees. I was deeply disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who also happens to be a valued constituent of mine, opposed the measure, dismissing fines for such disruptive and selfish behaviour as “silly”, despite the frustration and discontent that it causes for so many. I find her attitude extraordinary; I would be very surprised if she had not, like so many of my other constituents, experienced the phenomenon on buses across Wimbledon—assuming, of course, that she uses buses. The right hon. Lady is not alone, however, as I will explore in more detail in a moment.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us be clear: we are not talking about a small inconvenience. The scale of the problem is significant. Recent polling has found that almost two in five people say that they have experienced others playing music out loud often or sometimes, while only a quarter report experiencing it rarely. Furthermore, a majority of respondents say that they would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport. Women feel especially unable to challenge such antisocial behaviour; almost two thirds say that they would not feel comfortable doing so. Furthermore, playing music and other content loudly on public transport is done not only unthinkingly but, on many occasions, in a deliberately intimidatory manner designed to provoke and unsettle others going about their lawful business.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 28 introduces powers for local authorities to make byelaws for buses. That is welcome, and I agree that the behaviour that the clause already lists should be prohibited. There is, however, a clear omission. With passengers already paying extortionate fares to be packed in like sardines on buses, we should at least ensure that they do not face the added indignity of someone’s blaring TikTok feed. That is why our amendment 67 seeks to add the words “including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.” The amendment would explicitly allow transport authorities to bring in byelaws that ban persistent antisocial noise, such as music or videos played out loud on personal devices. It is a sensible, proportionate response to a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is there not a contradiction? Subsection (2) seems to suggest that there are ways of designing out the problem, whereas subsection (1) bans all new floating bus stops. If subsection (1) were offering a moratorium until the design issues had been addressed, we could support it, but subsections (1) and (2) do not sit well with each other.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
““Reasonable steps” is a legal term of art, and the shadow Minister’s criticism does not hold because the costs would be part of deciding whether it is reasonable. Having regard to guidance on disability could see many transport authorities fail to implement anything substantive, but this amendment would require them to take reasonable steps to deliver the guidance—that is, they must be reasonable steps. Accessibility is not a nice-to-have; equal access for all passengers is essential. If disabled people are unable to travel to their doctor’s appointments, to see their friends or to access work because of poor accessibility, the impact on their lives is intolerable. For accessibility, legislation needs to talk in terms of duties and steps that must be implemented rather than just a consideration that can be done away with.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In Wimbledon, many signs have been removed and not replaced, which is a real issue for older people and the digitally excluded. For those who do not have access to an iPhone, this sort of information is critical. Amendment 65 would address that need by ensuring that legislation covers both infrastructure and information provision, including up-to-date route maps, timetables and real-time arrival information at bus stops, ensuring accessibility and safety for all users. It would help to prevent people becoming disoriented or isolated, ensuring that disability does not stand in the way of navigating a local bus route. Amendment 60 would ensure that disability provisions are properly actioned.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Liberal Democrat amendment 65 would mean that accessibility guidance includes guidance relating to the provision of information at a stopping place, and amendment 60 would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that the disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Although the Bill makes provision for the publication of new statutory guidance to improve the accessibility of bus stops, service information provision is not mentioned. Up-to-date route and timetable information, as well as real-time arrival boards, are crucial for all passengers, especially those without access to digital tools. It also improves passengers’ feeling of control and security.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a lot to cover, but I will not take as long as the shadow Minister. Amendments 40 and 42 are sensible, as making guidance mandatory rather than permissible would keep the right balance. This is clearly an issue for many people, and having clear Government guidance on the accessibility of stopping places would be a positive step. As the shadow Minister said, surely the Minister will want to produce guidance, so making it mandatory would not be an onerous obligation. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not here to press amendment 29, but my party supports it and will press it. This positive amendment would ensure that there is guidance on toilet facilities—which are clearly an issue, particularly for people with a disability or medical condition—and on travel information in relation to floating bus stops.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have been lobbied by eloquent advocates from Guide Dogs and the RNIB, who are concerned that the review of the existing provision that we are proposing will be biased in favour of floating bus stops, so I make it absolutely clear that we would expect the Secretary of State to include representatives of those organisations along with other charities in that review process. Moving on to new clause 47, I am aware that some think there is no solution to this problem apart from banning floating bus stops. However, from my conversations with visually impaired colleagues, both in Parliament and beyond, I believe that compromise can be achieved. I counsel the Committee to reach a compromise that does not pit the blind and disabled against cyclists. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Kate Dearden .)”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I completely agree with the hon. Member. With the welcome increase in active travel and the number of cyclists, we need to address the conflicts that arise on the road. If one goes to the continent, it is part of their DNA—cyclists, motorists and pedestrians understand their relationship—but the same is not true in this country. The new clause proposes a review of existing floating bus stops within six months and would require the Secretary of State to come up with a plan. This is a proportionate, evidence-led and pragmatic path forward that puts safety, accessibility and inclusion at its heart.”
House of Commons1 July 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. My party has little to say on this group. We are supportive of clauses 5 and 6, although the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made a good point, and we would like to hear the Minister’s views on it.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say to the shadow Minister that equating passengers with consumers oversimplifies the complex issue of rural connectivity, and ends up isolating rural communities. As he admitted, in many rural communities, market mechanisms will not work. These are simply unprofitable routes.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be more brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have two points to make. I suspect that many of the shadow Minister’s points could be drawn from Hansard 40 years ago when bus deregulation was introduced. The great flaw of bus deregulation was it allowed private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes, leaving local transport authorities no opportunity to cross-subsidise their loss-making routes. That prioritised not passengers, but private providers. I fear that all the amendments would achieve the same end; they would simply allow private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes—often built up by local transport authorities that put effort, time and public money into them—without any provision for the non-profitable routes.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I heard the shadow Minister say that, and I understand it. However, there is a contradiction in his analysis. He admits that point, but constantly refers to consumers operating in profit-and-loss markets. He is making a very narrow equation, and I fear that allowing public providers in the way he wants would simply undermine the whole rationale behind what we—or the Government—are trying to do with the franchising process. It is too narrow and simply ends up completely undermining what we are trying to do.”
House of Commons26 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗